Logistics auto-forbid/claim functionality and stockpile overlay #4546

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-03T03:06:00Z

No description provided.

plugins/logistics.cpp

plugins/lua/stockpiles.lua

plugins/logistics.cpp

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-06T03:33:03Z

I'd welcome more feedback but I believe the comments have been addressed and its ready for another review.

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-06T16:38:22Z

found in testing that I needed to move the overlay down a bit to avoid overlap with the custom stockpile settings - pushed that tweak and ready for review

myk002 · 2024-05-06T17:29:54Z

will review tonight. Thanks!

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:12:00Z

docs/plugins/stockpiles.rst

+like autotrade, automelt, autodump, autoforbid/unforbid, or autotrain. There
+are also buttons along the top frame for:


Suggested change

like autotrade, automelt, autodump, autoforbid/unforbid, or autotrain. There

are also buttons along the top frame for:

like autotrade, automelt, or autotrain. There are also buttons along the top frame for:

these are just examples; no need to make the list complete

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:15:31Z

plugins/logistics.cpp

+        if (c.get_int(STOCKPILE_CONFIG_FORBID) == -1)
+            c.set_int(STOCKPILE_CONFIG_FORBID, 0);


This migration code should be in plugin_load_site_data, not here.

Thank for this feedback, I was both overlooking and not understanding plugin_load_site_data

I've moved the same logic to ~line 180 within plugin_load_site_data but I'm still not sure I understand,
if (c.key() == CONFIG_KEY) continue;

I put the mitigation after that and before,
watched_stockpiles.emplace(c.get_int(STOCKPILE_CONFIG_STOCKPILE_NUMBER), c);

It seems to work there. But I presume that it is like migrate_old_keys in that the logic would be unnecessary if v50.current saves are no longer loadable? Should I include a comment to this effect?

if (c.key() == CONFIG_KEY) continue;

that line is there because I was silly with the naming and the plugin-wide config is also matched by CONFIG_KEY_PREFIX. We don't want to treat the plugin-wide config as a stockpile-specific config. They're different schemas.

It would have been better to give the stockpile configs a prefix with an additional path component. Right now the plugin-wide config is named logistics/config and the stockpile configs are named like logistics/432 (where the number is the stockpile building id). What would have been smarter is to name the stockpile configs like logistics/stockpile/432 so we could use logistics/stockpile as the prefix instead of just logistics.

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:17:42Z

plugins/logistics.cpp

-            Units::isTamable(unit) &&
-            !Units::isDomesticated(unit) &&
-            !Units::isMarkedForTraining(unit);
+        return !item->flags.bits.forbid &&


I suggest moving the forbid check above the call to get_caged_item so we don't waste time on caged units if cage is forbidden anyway

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:23:19Z

plugins/logistics.cpp

+    }
+
+    bool can_designate(color_ostream& out, df::item* item) override {
+        return true;


you cannot forbid artifacts. this should return !is_artifact(item)

(which the DumpStockProcessor should also be checking for -- could you add that check there too?)

Oh! I didn’t know that, thanks!

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:26:39Z

plugins/logistics.cpp

-            out.print("logistics: marked %d item(s) for dumping\n", dump_count);
-        if (0 < train_count)
-            out.print("logistics: marked %d animal(s) for training\n", train_count);
+        logistics_cycle(out);


the reason this logic is kept separate from logistics_cycle is because logistics_cycle is called in response to manual triggers. We want this auto-running version to be quiet when it does nothing. we want the manually-called version to be clear and verbose when nothing happens.

Ok, I’ll revert that.

It feels like there is a lot of duplicate code in a few places like this one example that could be refactored, I didn’t want to go for a bunch in this PR, but separately, do you believe it worth while to reduce the duplication in this or is there a better longer term spot for these features?

For instance, what are your thoughts on leaving the call to logistics_cycle in plugin_onupdate but making the quiet aspect an optional input parameter?

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:29:21Z

plugins/lua/stockpiles.lua

@@ -545,6 +555,7 @@ function StockpilesOverlay:onRenderFrame()
        self.subviews.melt:setOption(config.melt == 1)
        self.subviews.trade:setOption(config.trade == 1)
        self.subviews.dump:setOption(config.dump == 1)
+        self.subviews.forbid:setOption(config.forbid+1)


this is a bit opaque. I suggest self.subviews.forbid:setOption(config.forbid) instead and changing the options in the widget to:

options={{label='Forbid', value='0'}, {label='Forbid', value='1', pen=COLOR_LIGHTRED}, {label='Unforbid', value='2', pen=COLOR_LIGHTBLUE}},

is :getOptionValue() expensive? After changing to your suggestion this seems nice and simple,

But unless :getOptionValue() is expensive then it seems like we'd want to do the same for the other values? Once that was done, would we really even need to getStockpileConfigs (which does hit every watched stockpile when I'd think we just need this one)?

I also couldn't quite figure out how to pass the value and the subviews' view_id to the on_change callback function. Note that while all my coding abilities are very very rusty, this is my first time with lua (and I already love it and hate it! lol). I did see that it will call the callback with (newvalue, oldvalue) but whenever I tried to reference value or view_id I couldn't figure out how.

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:38:12Z

plugins/lua/stockpiles.lua

@@ -428,10 +428,10 @@ end
 StockpilesOverlay = defclass(StockpilesOverlay, overlay.OverlayWidget)
 StockpilesOverlay.ATTRS{
    desc='Shows a panel when a stockpile is selected for stockpile automation.',
-    default_pos={x=24, y=-6},
+    default_pos={x=5, y=-11},


This position covers the categories. I think it might be better closer to where it was.

however, with the increased height, in its old position, it now completely covers the "add stockpile" button, which is also not good.

what is the least bad option here? should we keep everything on two lines and make the widget even wider?

I wrestled with this too, what I originally thought would be a nice easy layout turned out to look crappy to my eye. I’ll look again but wider looked awkward last time I tried it AND I really really want import/and export to come back to this overlay and hoped to tackle that next.

What do you think about not showing this overlay when the categories are up? When it’s lower it also obscures the tooltips of the lower left navigation buttons. I liked the current location because of its alignment with the stockpile frame and the tooltips and then later realized it’s uncomfortable overlap with the customize stockpile categories frame. In the resolutions I tested I didn’t get content overlap but I did dislike the look and started contemplating if it’s really valuable enough to show when customizing the stockpile category? I can envision several additions to this overlay that are going to need more space and I really can’t imagine another location other than lower left… I’ll play around with some options and post them in discord for discussion.

Oh, I wanted to ask because I saw that other open PR about it, should I call it ‘claim’ instead of unforbid? I take it that’s the new ingame language used?

Or maybe it could stay open on the stockpile category settings screen but move locations since the stockpile button is already covered?

Any tips on resolution testing? I had tried 1920x1080 and 1024x768 and didn’t have the overlap shown in your screenshot, which appears to be 1920x1200? More vertical pixels and we have less vertical space! haha - or am I overlooking other UI scaling features?

I find the best way to test is to have DF in windowed mode and then dynamically resize the window from very large to the smallest size (where DF starts scaling the graphics instead of reducing the column/row count)

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:43:32Z

plugins/lua/logistics.lua

+            'forbid items',
+            '[un][forbid]'))


why are these in the opposite order from the other columns?

I played with this too and the result came from,

Showing un-forbidden items / un-forbidden-able items is basically useless

Showing stockpiles with auto-unforbid enabled is useful, same for auto-forbid

Showing forbidden / forbid-able items is semi-valuable

Space is limited…

So to get all the underlined headers on a single line but also add all 4 new columns would’ve been low value and too many characters using up the limited horizontal space. A single [un][forbid] header was space conscious and I believed was appropriate since both can’t be enabled simultaneously. To my eye it looked better having both of those to the right of ‘forbid items’ - are you suggesting it be to the left of ‘forbid items’? I can try that.

Other thoughts when I was doing this, my [setting] concept was born out of trying to have a single heading for two checkboxes, perhaps it would be worth the horizontal space to make other headers follow that format?
[melt] [trade] [dump] [train] [un][forbid]

Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood your concern? I’ll post some comparison screenshots in discord of some options.

I was fine with the column contents - I was just curious about the order. Other columns have the checkboxes before the numbers instead of after

Ah, I see. I'll try that.

So I remember why I changed the order now, but I don't like my reasoning. But since it was your actual question: 'forbid items' causes the horizontal distance between checkboxes and item counts to be larger than any other section and it starts to look like it is more associated with training than forbidden items. At one point I reversed the columns and removed the 'forbid' from 'forbid items' hoping to effectively label both 'forbid' and save on that horizontal space.

Thoughts on something closer to this?

This is as addictive as the game! Once again I couldn't leave the couple nitpicks I saw alone in the prior screenshot, so here's a refreshed version,

Looking forward to any feedback!

Definitely going to work now! lol

This is as additive as the game!
Definitely going to work now! lol

welcome to my life : )

a good way to grab the user's configured hotkey

You certainly can get the key that a keybinding resolves to (follow the code that displays hotkey hints to see how), but most DFHack hotkeys use CUSTOM_<foo> keybindings, which are not usually changed by the player. E.g. the hotkey for training is CUSTOM_CTRL_A, so it's perfectly reasonable for you to just use a as the marker

it's perfectly reasonable for you to just use a as the marker

I’ll leave my concept of a hotkey matching on my wishful-thinking backlog and just match letters with the existing vanilla+dfhack experience (i.e. use [a] for autotrain enabled).

…but just to clarify the idea (maybe this is a case of a bad idea with problems that stimulates better idea)…

Concept: retain DFHack CUSTOM_CTRL_<letter> hotkey pattern for Stockpiles Overlay ToggleHotkeyLabels, BUT dynamically change its <letter> to correspond to the currently configured vanilla DF hotkey letter for that matching vanilla designation. This applies most directly to melt, dump, and forbid.
Example: So when Vanilla DF hotkey for Dump designations is configured for [i, d] then Stockpile Overlay would match the letter d for dump and configure its auto-dump toggle hotkey with [ctrl+d]. And this same letter (lowercase) would also be what is displayed here in the logistics status output to denote which stockpiles have auto-dump enabled ([d]). That way, the mental “muscle memory” of dump = ‘d’ applies in all three experiences:
a.) Vanilla DF dump designation
b.) Stockpile Overlay auto-dump
c.) Text output denoting dump, such as logistics status output
And this like-for-like letter-to-function experience would hold true even when the user customizes their DF keys (which is a popular DF Workshop item as you likely know and grudgingly deal with). The actual hotkey combination ([i, d] vs [ctrl+d]) would not be the same, just the letter would match.
Obvious Risk: (and presumably deal breaker) A user could configure letters for these functions which in vanilla DF that conflicts with something else in one of these DFHack experiences. This likelihood would then necessitate hotkey fallback logic to a set of unique defaults when a conflict exists. This becomes particularly high maintenance (and even confusing to a user experimenting with changing a particular DF hotkey). Especially if this pattern was extended to additional DFHack experiences. So… dead concept.

Obvious Risk

yeah

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:45:43Z

plugins/lua/logistics.lua

@@ -91,6 +111,8 @@ local function print_status()
    print(('Total items marked for melting: %5d'):format(global_stats.total_melt))
    print(('Total items marked for trading: %5d'):format(global_stats.total_trade))
    print(('Total items marked for dumping: %5d'):format(global_stats.total_dump))
+    print(('Total items marked forbidden: %7d'):format(global_stats.total_forbid))
+    print(('Total items unforbidden: %12d'):format(global_stats.total_unforbid))


"unforbidden" sounds like an action. how about Total items not marked forbidden?

I really questioned if this line should even be there at all… it’s basically a total item count where forbidden items aren’t counted. In my testing fort I think that was something like 25,000 items! And maybe it’s good for telling you just how many items your dwarves are dealing with but it seems like an odd plugin for providing that value.

fwiw, I read unforbid as an action and unforbidden as the state. My question about adopting the “claim” and “claimed” language feels very relevant to this. But I completely agree this line sticks out as awkward and out of place, especially when it’s values can be very large.

I think it's still valuable, at least for completeness sake. It's the complement to the forbidden count

myk002 · 2024-05-07T15:46:38Z

plugins/lua/logistics.lua

something seems off in the output here:

with the current code, the number of total dump items should equal the number of total forbid items, right?

I think the trouble is that forbidden items, of which you have 17 in that stockpile, now return false to the DumpStockpileProcessor's can_designate() method,

When the stockpile items are scanned by each processor those forbidden items don't add to either can_designate_counts or designated_counts

And when those ProcessorStats get passed over to logistics.lua it is the sum of those designated and can_designate values for each processor which is printed as the total designatable items in the column,
local function get_dstat(stats) return ('%d/%d'):format(stats.designated, stats.designated + stats.can_designate) end

So in the example of the dump column, it hasn't counted the forbidden items as designatable for dump, so that total is 17 short of the total items designatable for forbid, where they were included in the sum due to their designated state.

Therefore, I believe it's working as designed? But I'm not sure if it's too confusing for users. I kinda like the resulting information provided about how many items are in the stockpile and how many of them are forbidden or designated for melt, dump, or trade. If I've understood correctly, I think my two-cents is to keep it this way. But if you have ideas for something clearer to the user I'm open to changing it.

I think it's working as intended. Forbidden items are intended to be "invisible", and the behavior here is in line with that. They will be highlighted in the "marked forbidden" count of the output, and I think that is correct to do so.

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-07T17:30:49Z

Thank you again for the feedback!! I expect I can tackle this tonight.

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-07T17:31:32Z

Oh, do you prefer I not force push? Do you squash when you merge? I’m open to your preferences.

myk002 · 2024-05-07T22:14:51Z

Oh, do you prefer I not force push? Do you squash when you merge? I’m open to your preferences.

Force pushes do make the review harder to track because past comments get lost. We don't squash commit, but we also don't worry about messy commit histories either. When I do history spelunking, I look at the PR, not the commit.

To match in game language instead of 'unforbid' and 'mark'.

For stockpiles without configs shown by 'logistics status', the config bools (such as 'data.melt_masterworks' and data.melt.enabled) were being initialized to 'nil' and unable to be indexed. This fix ensures they are initialized to 'false' for stockpiles without a config.

Making the values of the the forbid CycleHotkeyLabel in the stockpile overlay ints matches the config values persisted in the game save. This makes setting and retrieving the overylay value 1-to-1 and clearer.

We want the auto-running cycle to be quiet when it does nothing. But we also want the manually-called version ('logistics now') to be clear and verbose, even when nothing happens.

Add auto-forbid and claim to logistics plugin and stockpile overlay

With the addition of the forbid column there was an increased need for optimizing the use of horizontal space. This tightens up the headers while also making the data presented easier to read.

myk002 · 2024-05-16T19:56:27Z

Is this PR still in progress? Please mark it as "Ready for review" when I should take another look at it

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-16T20:31:10Z

Thanks for the poke - yes, still in progress. I dabble with it every couple days - I have code for you to review but in many ways I’ve dabbled for too long (changed too much) and I’m pretty sure it would be easier to review as separate PRs. I was going to revert some of my overly aggressive code format changes (that in the end weren’t improving the readability like I thought they were when I did them), push it, and get your opinion on breaking it up. Other outstanding work is the overlay position. Did you have thoughts on that moving between the two modes or hiding it when configuring stockpile details?

…

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 1:56 PM Myk ***@***.***> wrote: Is this PR still in progress? Please mark it as "Ready for review" when I should take another look at it — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4546 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BDZ43WX7B4BFWFHXBXHTMD3ZCUFQBAVCNFSM6AAAAABHEZEUCOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWGA3TGOBQGY> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

myk002 · 2024-05-16T20:36:33Z

yeah, I think it's ok to only display the overlay on the map screen and not the stockpile customization screen. How about here:

that is, x=2, y=-2

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-17T03:16:16Z

My goodness is that ever atrocious lol - but yes, I was testing this poorly. For now I'm reverting it to what it was as the edge cases for that are far less worse imo.

Mostly looking for some feedback on if I should break this up or maybe what I need to scrap to get a first part merged (such as not exposing it in the UI until we have a better method).

…ics-functionality

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-17T03:26:30Z

@myk002 Looking for feedback on breaking this up or getting some aspect of it merged while we work out other aspects like the overlay position. To that end, some notes below - probably missing some things, feel free to ask of course,

logistics.lua
Refactor:

Removed extra loop through stockpiles to grab longest stockpile name length (moved to getStockpileData loop)
Renamed some variables for consistency within their local scope to avoid multiple definition of 'name' and 'stat'
Added new function group section-header comments
Added comments to print_stockpile_data to assist understanding of table spacing and layout
Precalculate 'designatable' when getStockpileData creates the 'data' table for easier accessibility

Style

Changes usages of 'Forbid' to 'Claim' (command line works with claim or unforbid)
Changed usages of 'Mark' to 'Designate'
Grouped and styled 'logistics' plugin feature status output

Fixes:

ensured data.{type}.enable and data.melt_masterworks get initialize to boolean

Features

added forbid column for logistics forbid/claim
added calculation and footer output of total number of designated and designatable items
enhanced appearance and information conveyed within table header (and new footer)

Not ready to merge imo, but the functionality is there, just not sure about my lua stuff in particular, I don't know any coding norms and welcome feedback so I learn.

myk002 · 2024-05-17T16:04:38Z

the list of changes looks good. after some more experimenting, I think the overlay would look good at

            "x": 5,
            "y": 44

I'll review the code itself when I get a chance (hopefully later today, maybe this weekend)

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-17T17:40:35Z

Did you see enough to know if you’d prefer a separate PR(s) for, a.) Minor fixes to existing functionality b.) The visual style changes c.) The code refactoring d.) Feature(s) Once I got in too deep, I figured those being PR’d in combination sure made it hard to review. But you’re a pro so many you don’t care. :-p Just let me know, I could reorganize it tonight and make your review(s) easier.

…

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:04 AM Myk ***@***.***> wrote: the list of changes looks good. after some more experimenting, I think the overlay would look good at "x": 5, "y": 44 I'll review the code itself when I get a chance (hopefully later today, maybe this weekend) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4546 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BDZ43WS2SMRWNRHVRT4CWODZCYTCXAVCNFSM6AAAAABHEZEUCOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJXHEYTQOJXGI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

docs/changelog.txt

plugins/logistics.cpp

plugins/lua/logistics.lua

plugins/lua/stockpiles.lua

myk002 · 2024-05-18T20:57:37Z

plugins/lua/stockpiles.lua

@@ -508,6 +508,16 @@ function StockpilesOverlay:init()
                                {label='Training', value=false}},
                        initial_option=false,
                        on_change=self:callback('toggleLogisticsFeature', 'train'),
+                    }, widgets.CycleHotkeyLabel{
+                        view_id='forbid',
+                        frame={t=2, l=0, w=16},


can you put some other toggles down on t=2 and make the overlay panel a bit shorter?

Yeah, I was thinking that would be possible - I had some crazier ideas too but for now I'll see if I can get it looking good with options in distributed in two rows.

myk002 · 2024-05-18T20:58:43Z

No need to split this into separate PRs. I think it's fine as it is.

…ics-functionality

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-19T02:43:18Z

I think these are the changes but I actually didn't mean to push them yet (was trying to test, had to fight with git first, when that was fixed I managed to push before I remembered I was trying to build and test). Anyway - personally I'd prefer to small this up into a different PR but I'll comment once it's tested and get a review on this response to the comments.

myk002

code all looks good. only outstanding item is rearranging the overlay and testing

myk002 · 2024-05-19T02:53:53Z

plugins/lua/logistics.lua

@@ -168,8 +168,8 @@ local function print_status()
    print((' - Items designated for trading: %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_trade))
    print((' - Items designated for dumping: %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_dump))
    print((' - Animals designated for train: %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_train))  -- TODO: fix to include all animals designated for training
-    print((' - Forbidden items             : %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_forbid)) -- TODO: this should exclude unreachable items and buildings
-    print((' - All (unforbidden) items     : %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_claim))  -- TODO: same ^^ implement in logistics.cpp or use item script api? (reqscript('item'))
+    print((' - Forbidden items             : %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_forbid)) -- TODO: this should exclude unreachable items


these numbers only involve items in stockpiles. "reachable" isn't really a concern here, is it?

Well, as it was previously written, I'm pretty sure it isn't limited to only items in stockpiles. I created the totals for the items in stockpiles and they don't match. Where you pointed out I could be using get_bad_flags for a bitwise compare, that's looping through all items in play to get total counts of melt designations.

I agree, this plugin isn't about summaries for all items... but it was there and makes sense in the context of, "what do I have designated for melt?" Extending it for, "what do I have designated as forbidden," causes the paradigm to break down because we often have so many items forbidden beyond what we care about. And that's where it's a bit odd for animals being trained as well... "wait, I thought I had more animals being trained! ...oh, I do, just not animals in stockpiles."

The more I thought about it the more I liked the summary's existing function to be a total of everything in the fort, but that's when I noted these as needing improvement. And secondarily, I thought it would be cool to show, "stockpiled" / "total" for each line, which would further clarify why this summary is there rather than just using the new totals in footer of the stockpiles table.

But I dunno... that's basically just my thought process. Maybe I'm overthinking it?

myk002 · 2024-05-19T02:54:35Z

plugins/lua/logistics.lua

@@ -168,8 +168,8 @@ local function print_status()
    print((' - Items designated for trading: %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_trade))
    print((' - Items designated for dumping: %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_dump))
    print((' - Animals designated for train: %5d'):format(global_sp_stats.total_train))  -- TODO: fix to include all animals designated for training


this is only concerning animals in cages in stockpiles. I don't think we need to show all animals designated for training here

xBlackTalonX · 2024-05-19T05:17:51Z

Fixed up in that last commit, interested in feedback on the layout. And yeah, ready for testing, not that I haven't been using it while developing it, my only fears are my more recent changes being something stupid.

myk002

looks good to me. I'm happy merging this as-is, but feel free to test/tweak further. There's always the next PR.

myk002 reviewed May 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

xBlackTalonX changed the title ~~Stockpile auto-forbid/unforbid logistics functionality~~ Stockpile auto-forbid/unforbid logistics functionality [wip] May 3, 2024

xBlackTalonX force-pushed the stockpile-auto-forbid-and-unforbid-logistics-functionality branch from 4528709 to 183394f Compare May 5, 2024 05:28

xBlackTalonX marked this pull request as draft May 5, 2024 05:33

xBlackTalonX force-pushed the stockpile-auto-forbid-and-unforbid-logistics-functionality branch 3 times, most recently from ae5129f to c51ab27 Compare May 6, 2024 03:25

xBlackTalonX changed the title ~~Stockpile auto-forbid/unforbid logistics functionality [wip]~~ Stockpile auto-forbid/unforbid logistics functionality May 6, 2024

xBlackTalonX marked this pull request as ready for review May 6, 2024 03:32

add auto-un/forbid to logistics plugin and stockpiles overlay

e87d1f1

xBlackTalonX force-pushed the stockpile-auto-forbid-and-unforbid-logistics-functionality branch from c51ab27 to e87d1f1 Compare May 6, 2024 16:28

myk002 reviewed May 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

xBlackTalonX marked this pull request as draft May 7, 2024 17:30

xBlackTalonX added 11 commits May 12, 2024 19:54

revert changes to stockpiles.rst

380f2fe

style: match in game words 'claim' and 'designate'

19447b8

To match in game language instead of 'unforbid' and 'mark'.

fix: cannot forbid or dump artifacts

e3e4ece

fix: check for forbidden before getting caged item

88717fe

fix: initialize forbid config in existing saves

48b5c9a

refactor: clearer setting of overlay forbid label

2646b5b

Making the values of the the forbid CycleHotkeyLabel in the stockpile overlay ints matches the config values persisted in the game save. This makes setting and retrieving the overylay value 1-to-1 and clearer.

fix: make cycle results verbose when called by usr

6e25eee

We want the auto-running cycle to be quiet when it does nothing. But we also want the manually-called version ('logistics now') to be clear and verbose, even when nothing happens.

Merge '50.13-r2' into logistics-auto-forbid

df6c88d

Add auto-forbid and claim to logistics plugin and stockpile overlay

fix: counts output to console mislabeled

9a8cb1f

style: improved logistics status output layout

f2e1690

With the addition of the forbid column there was an increased need for optimizing the use of horizontal space. This tightens up the headers while also making the data presented easier to read.

refactor: revert some excessive code-style changes

eafc9f2

xBlackTalonX added 2 commits May 16, 2024 21:16

revert overlay location changes

0143537

Merge branch 'develop' into stockpile-auto-forbid-and-unforbid-logist…

35819b1

…ics-functionality

xBlackTalonX changed the title ~~Stockpile auto-forbid/unforbid logistics functionality~~ WIP: Logistics auto-forbid/claim functionality and stockpile overlay May 17, 2024

fix: move overlay position to "x": 5, "y": 44

964209d

myk002 reviewed May 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

myk002 marked this pull request as ready for review May 18, 2024 20:58

myk002 changed the title ~~WIP: Logistics auto-forbid/claim functionality and stockpile overlay~~ Logistics auto-forbid/claim functionality and stockpile overlay May 18, 2024

xBlackTalonX added 8 commits May 18, 2024 20:09

fix: typo in changelog and version number

d04720d

fix code style for inline table declaration

9578962

revert: bad_flags check handles artifacts

a503297

refactor: use bad_flags bitwise check

72c031d

fix: replaced reserved name type with desig

5da7f44

fix: reduce overlay size to avoid button overlap

637d856

fix: only show logistics when subviews aren't open

ded1650

Merge branch 'develop' into stockpile-auto-forbid-and-unforbid-logist…

580d226

…ics-functionality

myk002 reviewed May 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

Adjusted layout and fix to hide overlay in sub-scn

c5c08e8

myk002 approved these changes May 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

myk002 merged commit 3444c3d into DFHack:develop May 19, 2024
14 checks passed

		like autotrade, automelt, autodump, autoforbid/unforbid, or autotrain. There
		are also buttons along the top frame for:

	like autotrade, automelt, autodump, autoforbid/unforbid, or autotrain. There
	are also buttons along the top frame for:
	like autotrade, automelt, or autotrain. There are also buttons along the top frame for:

		if (c.get_int(STOCKPILE_CONFIG_FORBID) == -1)
		c.set_int(STOCKPILE_CONFIG_FORBID, 0);

Logistics auto-forbid/claim functionality and stockpile overlay #4546

Logistics auto-forbid/claim functionality and stockpile overlay #4546

Conversation

xBlackTalonX commented May 3, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 6, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 6, 2024

myk002 commented May 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

myk002 May 12, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xBlackTalonX May 12, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xBlackTalonX May 9, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xBlackTalonX May 9, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

myk002 May 10, 2024 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xBlackTalonX commented May 7, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 7, 2024

myk002 commented May 7, 2024

myk002 commented May 16, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 16, 2024 via email

myk002 commented May 16, 2024 • edited

xBlackTalonX commented May 17, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 17, 2024

myk002 commented May 17, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 17, 2024 via email

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

myk002 commented May 18, 2024

xBlackTalonX commented May 19, 2024

myk002 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xBlackTalonX commented May 19, 2024

myk002 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

myk002 May 12, 2024 •

edited

xBlackTalonX May 12, 2024 •

edited

xBlackTalonX May 9, 2024 •

edited

xBlackTalonX May 9, 2024 •

edited

myk002 May 10, 2024 •

edited

myk002 commented May 16, 2024 •

edited